RIAA Scores $105M USD from Limewire, Gives Nothing to Artists

[Ben Lahnger]

RIAA Scores $105M USD from Limewire, Gives Nothing to Artists

SOURCE

May 13, 2011 11:24 AM

Parasitic nature of music industry's big labels continues

by Jason Mick

In today's market many independent musicians view the big record labels as a parasitic entity of sorts, exploiting talented musicians, inflating undertalented pop stars and lavishly spending, while crying over "dropping" profits. Of course, not everyone feels that way, but a recent settlement between major label copyright watchdog group the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and filesharing service LimeWire does little to convince observers otherwise.

You may recall that LimeWire was smote down by the RIAA in federal court over copyright infringement claims. The site's appeals fell on deaf ears, and the service was ordered shut down.

The case has finally been wrapped up with a jury deciding on damages against the service. The jury in this case opted to arrange a settlement between LimeWire and the RIAA legal team, which would call for LimeWire to pay $10,808 USD per track for the 9,715 tracks the RIAA claimed LimeWire infringed, for a total fine of $105M USD.

While that may sound like a lot, it's actually significantly less than the maximum fine of $150,000 USD per track the jury could have awarded for willful infringement. That would have resulted in a fine of $1.46B USD. The RIAA originally sought $150B USD in damages from LimeWire -- approximately15 times the music industry's total reported yearly income -- but was deterred by the minor triviality that LimeWire had nowhere near this amount of money.

RIAA Chairman Mitch Bainwol hailed the decision, commenting, "The resolution of this case is another milestone in the continuing evolution of online music to a legitimate marketplace that appropriately rewards creators."

The settlement will do little to improve the major labels' image, though, as they're not giving any of the record windfall to the artists that actually had their work infringed.

Instead, the organization promised to spend the money to reinvigorate its unprofitable campaign of threats and lawsuits, in addition lobbying politicians to offer greater enforcement of copyright infringement at their constituents' tax expense and outlaw consumer practices like creating backup copies (which the RIAA contends is "stealing").

RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy states, "Any funds recouped are re-invested into our ongoing education and anti-piracy programs."

The RIAA would surely argue that artists would eventually benefit by reducing piracy. However, the organization's past efforts have proved only marginally effective at best as piracy rates have waned and waxed with the years passing years, always remaining relatively high.

Recent studies have also shown that pirates are the biggest legal purchasers of music. This makes sense, as many view piracy as a "preview" of sorts, which they use to decide which artists are worth supporting. They might not buy that Lil Wayne track they downloaded, but they might end up buying an album from a smaller artist they discovered, like The Antlers.

At the same time major labels in the U.S. and Britain are accused of committing mass infringement and stealing millions in revenue from independent musicians. The labels have convinced politicians and the legal system to give them the right to sell any track that they "can't find" licensing information for.

In effect this means they can go out and steal copyrighted work of small independent labels and musicians. A compensation system is in place, but it's notoriously bad -- many musicians have struggled for years to get repaid, only to find their pleas fall on deaf ears.

At the end of the day the major labels' campaign of infringement and campaign against infringers in the public have a surprising amount in common. Both generate big money for the labels -- and both give nothing to artists.

And so the other shoe has dropped.

I recognize this is a blog post, and so is composed of some opinion and commentary, but I'm comfortable in assessing the content to be a reasonable overview of the state of affairs.

I still believe in paying for music, but dammit ... that's because I DO want the artists to get paid a fair amount for their efforts. The record labels' business model is becoming increasingly prohibitive and damaging to consumers and artists alike. I can only hope that this digital age see continuing success for artists who choose to control their own product distribution.

[Despanan]

What needs to happen is that we as a people need to decide to bypass the recording industry and buy directly from independent artists. It's easier and easier to record and distribute these days, and with services like paypal and pandora and the like we can locate new artists easier and make sure they directly benefit from our buisiness, as opposed to some bloated corporation.

Seriously though, FUCK the RIAA.

[MissCheyenne]

^ This. It's so easy these days to produce music at home and distribute it yourself. With a bit of research and some time and effort, independent releases can be a great thing. I buy all my music, either on CD or as digital downloads because I want to support the artists and bands I like, not because I want to line the pockets of greedy record companies.

[CuckooTuli]

I agree about fair payment for efforts rendered, and would buy a CD from a band I saw live without knowing and took a shine to, or an up and coming/non-mainstream (i.e. probably needs the profits) band. I just don't think already-huge artists like Tom Waits or Bob Dylan need my 14 quid that badly, and if they really think they do, fuck them for being greedy shits first and foremost above artistry. The irony is, musicians themselves (though admittedly I'm talking mostly about those who've already 'made it') tend to do a lot less hand-wringing about this shit than record companies, which is pretty telling about where most of the profits actually go. Would definitely agree with Despanan about bypassing the glorified and overpaid PA that is the recording industry, in ideal-land.

Fuckin' record companies... worse than estate agents.

[Ben Lahnger]

Wait. What?

It doesn't matter whether Bob Dylan "needs" your 14 quid.

It's a fact that no matter how much money he's collected in the past, if you would like to enjoy any of Bob Dylan's products, it's right that you pay him something for it. Whether the current model is paying him the right amount or whether it's charging you the tight amount is up for debate.

But you suggesting that he's rich enough, and Bob (or Tom Waits or anyone else) expecting to get some of your money for listening to his music makes him greedy is ridiculous. The notion that he's so big that you should just get to listen to his music for free is just wrong.

Art is never not worth paying for, no matter how well-off the artist might seem.

[Apathy's_Child]

Somebody like Bob Dylan would be a multi-millionnaire, though. He DOESN'T need your money, and can afford to retire, if he's doing it for anything other than the love of what he does. And there are far more worthy people to focus on, if we're looking for material gains that match the benefit given to society at large - surely becoming a millionnaire many times over constitutes fair payment for a service whose tangible benefits to society at large are pretty negligable, in real terms. I can't disagree that stomping your feet over money, when you've already earned more of it than you could ever spend in your own lifetime, constitutes greed.

/talking fair payment blues

[Saya]

Not to mention Bob Dylan probably doesn't get half of that 14 quid. If he sells millions of millions it does make a difference, yes, but from what I understand the lesser famous artists make the better part of their money from tours rather than cd sales, except for independant artists of course.

[CuckooTuli]

"Fair payment" surely means "proportionate payment". However, your answer would suggest we're on vastly different pages regarding any one person's right to earn so much money for a non-essential service, Ben. Getting paid to do what you love is in practice a PRIVILEGE - most people spend their lives bringing more money into a company than they’ll ever see the fruits of in their own lifetime. As other people have pointed out, it’s not like the majority of money paid under such a system actually goes to the artist. However, even if it did, millions upon millions cause me to lose that sense of obligation I feel when it’s someone who’s actually trying to make a living, rather than expanding an already-vast fortune.

I get the whole “He who puts in the work should see the return” issue, and I don’t disagree on principle. But most people don’t get to count the money based on doing what they love. Those who do are sometimes talented, sometimes lucky, and often, a little of both. And for those who DO manage to crack both... frankly, cry me a fucking river if my downloading an album means they fall just short of having enough money to stitch together and wear as disposable clothing.

[Ben Lahnger]

I don't care whether he does it for the love of art or not, or whether he's rich beyond comprehension. At no point does a man stop deserving to get paid for his work. Artists are no exception.

This ... "for a service whose tangible benefits to society at large are pretty negligable, in real terms" ... is just offensive.

And this ... "frankly, cry me a fucking river if my downloading an album means they fall just short of having enough money to stitch together and wear as disposable clothing" ... misses the point. When you decide this is okay, no matter what the rationalization (and that's all it is), what have you done to your own soul?

[CuckooTuli]

My "soul"? ... Never mind.

If you think my stance is an amoral one ('cause I'm not sure what else my soul could possibly have to do with this), you've completely missed my point. However, like I said, it would appear we're on different pages with this. I agree that every man has the right to be paid for his work. I disagree that he the absolute right to be paid, and paid, and paid, and paid, for no other reason than landing on his feet with the musician's dream-job. A bottomless pit of money in exchange for labour ISN'T an automatic right - if it were, it'd be accessible to everyone. It is not. Therefore, I have no moral problem with looking at these things case-by-case. Like I said, I don't download all my music.

If record companies are going to get greedy and charge MANY times the production cost for a CD, people won't buy them. Simple. The question to me would be why record co's should get to restrict people's access to art, allowing them to consume it on terms which are often unfair and exploitative to both artists AND consumers. Perpetuating this process doesn't exactly do shit to help the artists either.

So, yeah... cry me a fucking river.

[Ben Lahnger]

I know you and I agree about the record companies, but this thing about stealing the music if the artist has a certain amount money is a different deal. Every time an artist produces a new work, if you wish to enjoy it, they deserve to get paid.

It isn't a matter of a bottomless pit of money; you're not paying them a bottomless pit of money so that statement is disingenuous. You pay the artist once and take the work home. Simple.

Why should YOU get to determine how wealthy an artist should be before it's okay for you to take their work? When did you decice you get to be the determiner? How is that in any way a moral judgement?

In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. It makes no distinction on how much property or wealth that person has.

You defend it by demeaning or defaming the level of wealth and success an artist has achieved, but that is just self-serving rationalization.

One you have justified theft of property, theft of identity is permissible. Once theft of identity is permissible, theft of privacy, freedom and more become permissible.

I misspoke when I said soul. I meant to indicate that if one justifies the taking of a work created by another person, for any rationalization, one has planted ones feet firmly on a slippery moral slope.

[CuckooTuli]

Like I said, I just don't think we're on the same page here. I think the fundamental disagreement we're having is about the right to earn in a society which does not ensure that right is available to everybody, or that it is fair and proportionate to work completed. This doesn't make any difference to you. It does to me.

You think my stance is morally dubious, I think yours is rigid to the point of arbitrariness. I think it IS valid to make a distinction between people's earnings, because the "right" to earn, to be paid a wage proportionate efforts rendered, is not applied to everybody in society. So, honestly, multi-millionnaires are pretty much the people I'm least worried about.

[CptSternn]

I pointed this out before, but the RIAA are nothing more than a group of lawyers that go after 'infringement' for the big record companies. 100% of all judgements and settlements they get go right into their own pockets. They are not collecting for monies the artists have allegedly lost, they collect for themselves and line their own pockets.

The record companies are ok with this, as it fits right into their business model. They have a quasi-police force they don't have to pay that go after any penny they think they can grab.

I am all for supporting artists, but the business model which record companies use these days is severely outdated and was set up to enrich a handful of owners at the top at the expense of the artists and fans.

Record companies operate pretty much in the same manner as a hedge fund or other investment.

They find say a dozen or so musicians they think might be popular and divy up all of their investment money to them. If an artist takes off, they will next year give them more money, but the reality is 90% of the artists they back fail and they lose that money.

They basically are throwing a shite load of cash at a wall and seeing what sticks. Of all of the multi-millions they bring in, they end up pissing away most of it on gambles, and then charge fans of popular artists exorbitant rates to cover their losses.

It's also like backing multiple horses in a race and hoping one hits it big.

Either way you look at it, there is a large amount of waste.

[Ben Lahnger]

Sternn, agreed. (Feels odd to be saying that, but hey, a broken clock is right twice a day.)

CuckooTuli , I cannot begin to fathom how you can compare an artist who produces something so unique that no one else can make that exact thing to billionaires in general, who as a whole mostly can't claim that. With an artist there is no way to measure fair and proportionate work completed, since they are the only ones who can produce that exact work. Or, as it's been put more succinctly, art may have value, but good art is priceless.

But I'm not interested in arguing with your thieving ass. If you don't steal things equally from Walmart, Shell Oil and Microsoft as you do by stealing music online, this ain't a matter of principal - just a crime of convenience. And the rest is, as I said, self-serving rationalization.

[CuckooTuli]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

CuckooTuli , I cannot begin to fathom how you can compare an artist who produces something so unique that no one else can make that exact thing to billionaires in general, who as a whole mostly can't claim that. With an artist there is no way to measure fair and proportionate work completed, since they are the only ones who can produce that exact work.

So... are you saying you disagree with my fundamental point about the right to earn, or are you arguing that artists should be exceptions to a point you otherwise don't have a problem with?

If you're sticking with the latter - why? What makes an artist more worthy than, say, a doctor, or an aid worker?

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

But I'm not interested in arguing with your thieving ass.

That's cool - except you apparently are, since your own morally arbitrary ass has posted more than once in reply.

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

If you don't steal things equally from Walmart, Shell Oil and Microsoft as you do by stealing music online, this ain't a matter of principal - just a crime of convenience. And the rest is, as I said, self-serving rationalization.

You're right in a sense - I don't steal from those companies, because the likelihood of being convicted of a crime is higher, yes. But I wouldn't have a moral problem with someone who found a way to do so. I see no moral reason to support a system I see as being fucked up, and not being a martyr about it doesn't automatically invalidate the reasoning behind this. Am I morally obliged to try and kill everyone I think is ruining the world for other people?

[Ben Lahnger]

First, I am not a socialist, I am in favor of capitalism. But any power can corrupt, so in a perfect world capitalism would be reined in by a system of checks and balances. Because rampant capitalism at the extreme end of behavior (like the kind exhibited by the RIAA) is reprehensible.

Originally Posted by CuckooTuli

why? What makes an artist more worthy than, say, a doctor, or an aid worker?

Because they are. Or specifically, they aren't worth more as a human being, but their work is, as I stated:

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

With an artist there is no way to measure fair and proportionate work completed, since they are the only ones who can produce that exact work.

An aid worker's efforts can be duplicated by just about anyone. Except at the very highest levels, a doctor's work is reproduced by other doctors around the globe. The exception being the doctors at those highest levels that invent unique new procedures. The operating adjective being "unique". I would venture that creativity on that level also deserves to be called art.

No one else can write a new Bob Dylan song. I'm not a die-hard fan (I could have picked The Cure instead), but I know his work can't be duplicated by any other human on the planet. That's the difference.

Originally Posted by CuckooTuli

You're right in a sense - I don't steal from those companies, because the likelihood of being convicted of a crime is higher, yes. But I wouldn't have a moral problem with someone who found a way to do so. I see no moral reason to support a system I see as being fucked up, and not being a martyr about it doesn't automatically invalidate the reasoning behind this. Am I morally obliged to try and kill everyone I think is ruining the world for other people?

So you don't steal from every person that you think is profiting unfairly at the expense of the masses; just a group of people like artists, musicians, actors and software programmers (I'm guessing.) I suspect you don't steal from other millionaires and billionaires like pro athletes or captains of industry or political leaders. So you penalize a narrow swath of people, wreaking your "justice" unequally and unfairly on only some of the members of the system you abhor.

And you DO see a reason to support this system that you percieve as being fucked up, if you think you might be penalized, fined or jailed for not supporting it. You only live the convictions of your beliefs if you don't have any skin in the game.

That statement about "killing" is a facile argument. But then since stealing and killing are both morally wrong, I don't think you really have a point.

You know, I'd respect you a whole lot more if you just fessed up and said, "Dude, I'm struggling to make ends meet. I can't afford this stuff, but the music lifts my spirits when I'm feeling down, so I steal it."

Because I understand stealing a loaf of bread if you're hungry. Just be homest about it. Don't stand in the alley with it afterwards and tell me you're sticking it to the man.

[CuckooTuli]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

First, I am not a socialist, I am in favor of capitalism.

Yeah, I noticed that pretty early on in this argument. Which is why, as I stated earlier, I don’t think we’re ever going to agree on this, because we’re clearly not on the same page.

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

Because they are.

... Fucking stellar example of exactly what I'm talking about in your argument.

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

An aid worker's efforts can be duplicated by just about anyone. Except at the very highest levels, a doctor's work is reproduced by other doctors around the globe. The exception being the doctors at those highest levels that invent unique new procedures. The operating adjective being "unique". I would venture that creativity on that level also deserves to be called art.

No one else can write a new Bob Dylan song. I'm not a die-hard fan (I could have picked The Cure instead), but I know his work can't be duplicated by any other human on the planet. That's the difference.

So “worthiness” to you is measured by uniqueness? In that case, the guy who created the Crazy Frog Song on a whim deserves to be paid more than the guy who shuns a city job likely to lead to lucrative promotion, and chooses to work helping homeless people get back on their feet. After all, anyone can do THAT shit, right?...

Except most people don’t. Most people choose the outcome which will materially benefit themselves and their families most. I don’t blame them for this. I blame systems that make it difficult to do right by those in your immediate vicinity WITHOUT taking this route, by treating other efforts as negligible.

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

... And you DO see a reason to support this system that you percieve as being fucked up, if you think you might be penalized, fined or jailed for not supporting it. You only live the convictions of your beliefs if you don't have any skin in the game.

Not true, actually. I’ve lost out over my convictions in real terms more than once. I’m just not a kamikaze about it. Why would I shoplift from Tescos, knowing I’m very likely to be caught – to no worthwhile end - when there are more valuable things I could be doing about my convictions? Like fundraising, protesting, donating to causes I believe in, and volunteering (all of which I actively do, before you ask in an effort to convince yourself that someone who doesn’t agree with you couldn’t possibly be any more than a self-entitled brat who just plain doesn’t feel like paying for something they can jack – in which case I WOULD simply download ALL, music, regardless of who’s making it)? Downloading isn’t so much an active protest, as a lack of respect for the principles you’re advocating. It’s opportunistic, sure. Then again, so is stealing a loaf of bread when you’re hungry. I don’t labour under the misapprehension that this is some grand and glorious battle stance. It’s just a small offshoot of principles I DO live by, in real terms.

The killing argument IS pretty facile: fair point, I can roll with that. To bring it down to a more everyday (and relevant) level, am I morally obliged to go and shoplift from every corporation I see as damaging, on principle?

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

That statement about "killing" is a facile argument. But then since stealing and killing are both morally wrong, I don't think you really have a point.

I bet I could think of situations in which both of these acts could be considered morally right even by you. Which would pretty much shit all over the moral arbitrism you’re advocating, before we even get into the particular niceties of downloading music.

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

You know, I'd respect you a whole lot more if you just fessed up and said, "Dude, I'm struggling to make ends meet. I can't afford this stuff, but the music lifts my spirits when I'm feeling down, so I steal it."

Because I understand stealing a loaf of bread if you're hungry. Just be homest about it. Don't stand in the alley with it afterwards and tell me you're sticking it to the man.

Well, what do you know – looks like capitalism ain’t so perfect after all.

Thankfully though, your respect means very little to me, since you apparently have trouble debating on the strength of your argument alone, without resorting to insults. I learned long ago that that achieves nothing besides making the other person shut down and decide you’re a prick who can’t be reasoned with. Good thing I’m too magnanimous to write you off. (Go on, tell me you don’t care because my thieving ass couldn’t possibly have anything of worth to say. That’s right, baby… talk arbitrary to me.)

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by namkcud

I'm not gonna read all this shit because I'm too fucking lazy, but what is it you do for a living, Cuckoo?

It's terribly commendable for an artist to say "Hey, man, have all of my music for free!" I've lost tons of money on tapes, CD-Rs and vinyl pressing just giving that shit away. Not one person has ever made me dinner for free when I ate out. Why is that OK? I learned a trade, so did they.

I think we need to differentiate between artists and those mega-artists out there.

I support local artists and artists in the g/i scene. I go to their shows, buy their albums, and purchase whatever other shwag they sell to keep them going. I like supporting them. I don't like to copy or download music from artists i know and like.

If a new track for some mega-artist comes out, I don't view that in the same light. These are multi-millionaires who will get millions from air play alone, forget they will play at your local concert venue at a cost of like 70-80 quid a head. Considering the artists themselves, even big ones, get like a few cent off each CD they sell, going to their show they get at least treble what they would get from you buying the CD. If I want to support a mega-artist I will go to their show and I don't feel bad about downloading their stuff.

But yes, like Ben said it is a bit of rationalisation but sure, I just can't feel bad ripping off an industry which itself is set up to rip people off, not to mention screw people with the use of the RIAA. When that Metallica interview came out during the whole Napster ordeal when Lars was crying about 4 million in projected sales he personally lost, and at the same time his tax returns showed he made over 40 million in the same year, it's just hard for me to feel any sympathy for them or other mega-artists either.

Then we see things like Will Smiths new 2 million dollar custom made movie trailer he has for MIB III and I am supposed to feel bad about downloading MIB III? If they didn't embellish in such sickening excess, I might care about downloading. But as long as they spend millions on 20 thousand dollar a night hotel rooms, million dollar custom dog houses, and other trivial items I just can't find it in me to feel bad about watching a downloaded film or listening to a downloaded song that comes from that culture.

The day they go on telly and talk about missing a meal or having to choose between paying rent or paying for electricity, I will change my behaviour, but sure, as long as they are living it up like some new form of royalty all the while the rest of the planet is fighting to put food on the table, I won't lose any sleep.

[CuckooTuli]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

I think we need to differentiate between artists and those mega-artists out there.

I support local artists and artists in the g/i scene. I go to their shows, buy their albums, and purchase whatever other shwag they sell to keep them going. I like supporting them. I don't like to copy or download music from artists i know and like.

If a new track for some mega-artist comes out, I don't view that in the same light. These are multi-millionaires who will get millions from air play alone, forget they will play at your local concert venue at a cost of like 70-80 quid a head. Considering the artists themselves, even big ones, get like a few cent off each CD they sell, going to their show they get at least treble what they would get from you buying the CD. If I want to support a mega-artist I will go to their show and I don't feel bad about downloading their stuff.

Yeah - dick-waving aside, this pretty much sums it up.

Originally Posted by namkcud

I'm not gonna read all this shit because I'm too fucking lazy, but what is it you do for a living, Cuckoo?

Student with a part-time job in an office on campus. Before that, three years of bar work and waitressing (some casual and a couple of long-termers).

Originally Posted by namkcud

It's terribly commendable for an artist to say "Hey, man, have all of my music for free!" I've lost tons of money on tapes, CD-Rs and vinyl pressing just giving that shit away. Not one person has ever made me dinner for free when I ate out. Why is that OK? I learned a trade, so did they.

I actually agree for the most part. To catch you up, I'm not arguing for unbridled downloading of all music and don't jack music from lesser-known artists - I see that as a completely different moral issue. I go to see bands I like, buy their shit, and buy their musics as gifts for people I reckon might like it. I just don't feel bad about downloading from what Sternn terms mega artists, the primary example being Bob Dylan. It doesn't make any difference to Ben whether my money makes a blip on his radar - it does make a difference to me. That's about the long & short of it.

Although it's not like the fucker's never had any money out of me - I've bought CDs of his as presents for other people and seen him live twice. The second time, he sat with his back to the audience, mumbled his way through the whole gig, and just plain didn't give a shit. (Though that's is an aside rather than a part of my argument.)

[MissCheyenne]

Originally Posted by namkcud

I'm not gonna read all this shit because I'm too fucking lazy, but what is it you do for a living, Cuckoo?

It's terribly commendable for an artist to say "Hey, man, have all of my music for free!" I've lost tons of money on tapes, CD-Rs and vinyl pressing just giving that shit away. Not one person has ever made me dinner for free when I ate out. Why is that OK? I learned a trade, so did they.

Baby, I'd make you dinner. Might even jiggle my stomach at you too.

That aside, how many of you (apart from ducky) really know how much work goes into writing, producing and distributing music? It's not an hours work, whacking a few chords together, singing a few lines, hitting a few drums and hoping you've pressed record. That shit is time consuming, seriously. Before I started writing, I studied music/music tech so I know exactly how much work goes into the production of a single track and I think that those who work in that industry, be them mega stars or newcomers, deserve to see the fruits of their labours.

[CuckooTuli]

Well, without repeating my views on the labour/fruits of issue, I would say that practically ALL jobs are hard in some way. But not all are so rewarding, you have huge numbers of people doing them anyway for the love of it. To earn millions upon millions doing what you love IS a privilege in my eyes.

Not saying musicians should just clam up and do it for free or GTFO - but the guys I'm talking about are so far from that, it's a non-issue to me. They could live off of royalties if they wanted to, yet they keep doing it. It would appear that it's not just about money to them either. It's an uneven system, and I'm comfortable with the equaliser.

[Still Jack]

I reserve my right to listen to any artists music for free. If I like said artist enough, I'll support them by going to one or more live shows. records are the menu, gig is the meal.

[CuckooTuli]

Originally Posted by Still Jack

I reserve my right to listen to any artists music for free. If I like said artist enough, I'll support them by going to one or more live shows. records are the menu, gig is the meal.

But most bands become known through their records, long before people start wanting to see them live. If it's not a financially viable option, they'll just stop. Look at the Monks - one of the best bands most people have never heard of. They just didn't make it after an incredible first album - so they stopped, because they had to make a living. And not for want of talent. Fucking tragedy. They were "discovered" by a significant amount of music lovers, after a couple of their most integral members had died. Too little, too late. Everybody loses.

[CptSternn]

The system is skewed. How many goth/industrial musicians do you hear on your local radio? I have mates who had never heard of half of the music I play, but after hearing it liked it and now listen to some tracks regularly. Those tracks will never hit mainstream as a small conglomerate keep all music except theirs from being played to the masses.

They limit what is played on the radio, limit what you can see live, and keep everyone under their thumb. Pay for their music or else. With the internet and thanks to small independent labels and radio shows we have made some headway over the past decade, but it is by no means equal.

Clear Channel owns what? 80% of all radio stations in America? Rupert Murdoch owns how many papers and TV stations? A handful of people control what the masses see. If they look no further than the normal adverts and radio spots you hear on a daily basis they wouldn't know other artists exist. The only reason this can happen is because of huge monopolies, which feed the aforementioned bad business model.

I can't feel bad when the reality is we are playing a game with a deck that is stacked against us and told we should feel bad for the very people who designed the game to screw us, all the while they sit back on a pile of money laughing at us from their newest 54 foot yacht.

Fight the machine.

[CuckooTuli]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Clear Channel owns what? 80% of all radio stations in America? Rupert Murdoch owns how many papers and TV stations? A handful of people control what the masses see. If they look no further than the normal adverts and radio spots you hear on a daily basis they wouldn't know other artists exist. The only reason this can happen is because of huge monopolies, which feed the aforementioned bad business model.

Would just like to pick this out for truth. "Free press" my ass.

Yo Ben, you folding or just taking your time? I could've downloaded discographies of every artist you ever liked in the time that's gone by since you last posted.

Where do you stand on selling music second-hand? E-Bay, charity shops, giving away old CDs etc.? Is that wrong because someone's buying the artist's product without paying them, or is it cool just so long as someone, somewhere gets paid and NO ONE EVER gets this shit scott-free?